ESPN rankings of all 81 national championship teams

[DangerDevil]

ESPN ranked all 81 men’s national basketball championship teams.

Duke’s 5 title teams came in as #15 1992, #24 2001, #41 2015, #50 2010, and #54 1991.

UNC’s highest ranked title team was 1957 at #8.

NC State’s 1974 team was #10 on the list.

This year’s UVA was #34 on the list.

Not to turn this into another one and done discussion but I personally think the older teams are under appreciated and think the “teams” such as our 91 team or Magic’s 79 MSU (#52) would beat the modern era teams.

The author alludes to our 1999 team along with 1991 UNLV and 2015 UK teams and “as some of the greatest teams to ever play the sport” that didn’t win it all.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...pionship-teams

I feel like discussion of the greatest teams ever exists somewhere on the forum but couldn’t find it with my searches, please merge if it already exists.

[kAzE]

I would be shocked that the 1992 team isn't in the top 10, but it's ESPN . . . so, meh. That team would destroy any national champion in the last 15 years hands down.

[freshmanjs]

I would be shocked that the 1992 team isn't in the top 5, but it's ESPN . . . so, meh. That team would destroy any national champion in the last 15 years hands down.

Of course, if "the shot" hadn't fallen, then the story would be that team had fatal flaws and the program had structural problems / was heading in the wrong direction.

[Truth&Justise]

These lists are always so subjective, it's hard to argue over. I can understand putting together a top 5 or top 10, but once you're parsing who is #27 versus who is #38, it gets really tough.

That said: my personal pet peeve is the difference in perception between 1993 UNC and 2010 Duke. In my eye, both were veteran teams with some good (but not yet well developed) NBA-level talent that played solid if unspectacular ball in the tournament all the way to a national title. Both won the ACC regular season, though 1993 UNC lost in the ACC tournament finals. Neither exactly dominated that season or tournament, nor were the giant killers. Both just took care of business against teams they were expected to beat.

So it baffles me to see them consistently ranked so differently in these types of lists: this author has 1993 UNC at #29 (ahead of the more talented 2005 and 2009 UNC teams, the 2007 repeat champion Gators, the 2015 Duke squad, last year's dominant Villanova team, and a host of others) while 2010 Duke is at #50.

In my mind, these two teams are extremely similar. What's with the disparate perception?

[Wander]

I guess this is as good an offseason thread as any to argue about my love for the 2010 team. They are way underrated, even (especially?) by Duke fans. In particular, there's no argument whatsoever to put 2015 Duke ahead of 2010 Duke. 2010 had a better offense, better defense, and won the ACC tournament.

These lists are too flavored towards NBA talent.

[vick]

I would be shocked that the 1992 team isn't in the top 10, but it's ESPN . . . so, meh. That team would destroy any national champion in the last 15 years hands down.

I don't think it's so much "ESPN" as it is that Gasaway is an efficiency and analytics guy, and the 1992 team doesn't scream "top 10 all time" when you look at that. We of course don't have the better metrics like Pomeroy going back that far, but what we do have puts them below plenty of title teams, and it's not hard to see why, given that they frankly gave up a ton of points. I've seen this apologized away as that they always had big leads and turned off the gas, but...like, 91 points to William and Mary? 85 points to Boston University?

I think freshmanjs is basically right that had Laettner's shot not fallen, the "flaws" in that team, especially on defense, would have been "obvious" in retrospect.

[CDu]

These lists are always so subjective, it's hard to argue over. I can understand putting together a top 5 or top 10, but once you're parsing who is #27 versus who is #38, it gets really tough.

That said: my personal pet peeve is the difference in perception between 1993 UNC and 2010 Duke. In my eye, both were veteran teams with some good (but not yet well developed) NBA-level talent that played solid if unspectacular ball in the tournament all the way to a national title. Both won the ACC regular season, though 1993 UNC lost in the ACC tournament finals. Neither exactly dominated that season or tournament, nor were the giant killers. Both just took care of business against teams they were expected to beat.

So it baffles me to see them consistently ranked so differently in these types of lists: this author has 1993 UNC at #29 (ahead of the more talented 2005 and 2009 UNC teams, the 2007 repeat champion Gators, the 2015 Duke squad, last year's dominant Villanova team, and a host of others) while 2010 Duke is at #50.

In my mind, these two teams are extremely similar. What's with the disparate perception?

Gasaway's argument was largely that the UNC team won its games by an average of 18 ppg.

That team also had more NBA talent as part of its key pieces, with a senior Lynch and a junior Montross (whose career was curtailed by injuries) being stars on that team. The Duke 2010 team certainly had NBA players, too (more in fact), but the only non-fringy NBAer was a lightly-used freshman Mason Plumlee. The major players for the 2010 team were guys who fizzled in the NBA or never made it there at all.

If you look at NBA win shares, it's not close. The 1993 UNC team had Lynch (32.3) and Montross (8.2) as two of their stars. The 2010 Duke team had Singler (10) and Lance Thomas (5.4) among their key players/stars. Mason Plumlee has 30.8 win shares, but he was seldom-used on that team and not nearly the player he is now.

I mean, it's all subjective obviously, and the difference between 29 and 50 might not be all that great in Gasaway's mind anyway. One could certainly argue another way, but I can at least see his logic.

[sagegrouse]

I guess this is as good an offseason thread as any to argue about my love for the 2010 team. They are way underrated, even (especially?) by Duke fans. In particular, there's no argument whatsoever to put 2015 Duke ahead of 2010 Duke. 2010 had a better offense, better defense, and won the ACC tournament.

These lists are too flavored towards NBA talent.

Well, sometimes its the "goodbye" scene. We almost lost to Butler in the National Championship game.

[Troublemaker]

I guess this is as good an offseason thread as any to argue about my love for the 2010 team. They are way underrated, even (especially?) by Duke fans. In particular, there's no argument whatsoever to put 2015 Duke ahead of 2010 Duke. 2010 had a better offense, better defense, and won the ACC tournament.

These lists are too flavored towards NBA talent.

You can't compare kenpom efficiencies across seasons (assuming that's what you are doing). For example, 2015's adjusted efficiency margin of +32.48 might very well be better than 2010's +33.29 if 2015 were a particularly strong college bball season and 2010 were a particularly weak one (which is pretty much how I view the two seasons [although I admit I can't prove it with data.]) And even if the two seasons were equal, the difference is small and probably within the margin of error of kenpom. Additionally, re: conference achievements, the competition level in the ACC got stronger once it added the Big East teams although, like many, I prefer the old ACC, anyway. And 2010 was only Tony Bennett's first season.

I would rather you just say that by eye test and comfort level, you felt 2010 was better than 2015. Which is fine. As it were, by eye test and comfort level, I felt 2015 was better. (There is always an argument for one team over another. It's the internet.)

[JasonEvans]

All I know is that if Trajan doesn't walk at the end of the 1999 championship game (maybe dump the ball down in to the best post scorer at Duke since G-man?) then 1999 is in the top 3, perhaps even #1.

[Reddevil]

This list just proves to me that ESPN falls into off season mode as fast as we do.

[Wander]

You can't compare kenpom efficiencies across seasons (assuming that's what you are doing). For example, 2015's adjusted efficiency margin of +32.48 might very well be better than 2010's +33.29 if 2015 were a particularly strong college bball season and 2010 were a particularly weak one (which is pretty much how I view the two seasons [although I admit I can't prove it with data.]) And even if the two seasons were equal, the difference is small and probably within the margin of error of kenpom. Additionally, re: conference achievements, the competition level in the ACC got stronger once it added the Big East teams although, like many, I prefer the old ACC, anyway. And 2010 was only Tony Bennett's first season.

I would rather you just say that by eye test and comfort level, you felt 2010 was better than 2015. Which is fine. As it were, by eye test and comfort level, I felt 2015 was better. (There is always an argument for one team over another. It's the internet.)

Who said anything about kenpom? 2015 was better than 2010 at post offense, and backcourt depth if you want to count that. 2010 was better at shooting, ball handling, rebounding, interior defense, and backcourt defense. So, yeah, nothing against our great 2015 team, but 2010 was slightly better overall on offense and a lot better overall on defense.

The other things that 2015 was "better" at - playing at pace and having more NBA talent at the top of the roster - are just style things and shouldn't be considered inherently good IMO.

[fuse]

I’ll simplify the article (having not read it) with my perspective:

1. 1991
2. 1992
3. 2001
4. 2010
5. 2015
6-81 who cares????

[kako]

This is pure sportsyak fodder.

Case in point: all teams after 70 are from the 40's and 30's (save CCNY, from 1950). Yeah, basketball really sucked back then, so it makes sense to rank them low

9F

[HereBeforeCoachK]

This is pure sportsyak fodder.

Case in point: all teams after 70 are from the 40's and 30's (save CCNY, from 1950). Yeah, basketball really sucked back then, so it makes sense to rank them low

9F

Actually it does...back then, far fewer teams, far less competition...that's probably accurate, even if you norm for advances in coaching, nutrition, training, etc.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The 1991 team, for the entire NCAA tournament, was a fantastic team. They routed everyone to get to the FF...went toe to toe with Vegas and beat them in the semis...and still had enough in the tank for a relatively comfortable arms length win over Kansas. I realize that the full season may say differently, but it's not like there was anything flukey about any of their six tourney wins.

[jimsumner]

All I know is that if Trajan doesn't walk at the end of the 1999 championship game (maybe dump the ball down in to the best post scorer at Duke since G-man?) then 1999 is in the top 3, perhaps even #1.

At the risk of re-litigating that painful loss, on that particular night Elton Brand was not a great post scorer, while Langdon was having one of the best games of his career.

And Langdon was fouled.

[CDu]

At the risk of re-litigating that painful loss, on that particular night Elton Brand was not a great post scorer, while Langdon was having one of the best games of his career.

And Langdon was fouled.

Yep, Langdon had, up to that point, an amazing game. Brand, on the other hand, was dealing with a rotating set of physical 7-footers and had a decent-but-not-great night.

I have no problem giving the last shot to your fifth-year senior marksman who was having a great night. I wasn't thrilled with having Langdon bringing the ball up the length of the court (he wasn't an off-the-dribble shot creator), but I guess Coach K was worried that Langdon wouldn't get the ball back if they didn't give it to him immediately.

[Nugget]

At the risk of re-litigating that painful loss, on that particular night Elton Brand was not a great post scorer, while Langdon was having one of the best games of his career.

And Langdon was fouled.

But, Langdon hadn't had that great night by beating (national defensive player of the year) Ricky Moore off the dribble. Trajan's game was never really about being great at beating people off the dribble.

Asking Langdon to create a play outside of his skillset against the other team's best defender -- twice in the last minute -- always seemed like not the optimal strategy to get the best shot.

Coach K has been nothing if not consistent in that approach in late game scenarios (e.g., asking Grayson to make the play off the dribble against KU last year, repeatedly going to RJ off the dribble this year) -- indeed, his quote after the U.Conn game is a pretty good distillation of his philosophy on this: '''The ball was in our best player's hands with an opportunity to win the game,'' said Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski. 'And that's the way it should be.'" https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/s...caa-title.html

Nevertheless, I think it's fair to question whether that's always the best strategy -- maybe it's better to get the ball into that best player's hands for the that last shot via some means other asking them to both create and take the shot, particularly when (at least in Trajan's case) shot creation wasn't his strength.

[AGDukesky]

Yep, Langdon had, up to that point, an amazing game. Brand, on the other hand, was dealing with a rotating set of physical 7-footers and had a decent-but-not-great night.

I have no problem giving the last shot to your fifth-year senior marksman who was having a great night. I wasn't thrilled with having Langdon bringing the ball up the length of the court (he wasn't an off-the-dribble shot creator), but I guess Coach K was worried that Langdon wouldn't get the ball back if they didn't give it to him immediately.

Agreed. Brand was probably fouled more than guarded by Voskuhl and of course Avery just seemed to collapse under playing against his older, former teammate in Moore. Still, watching Langdon try to dribble against pressure from the backcourt seemed less than ideal...